GAFCON urges restrictions on Lambeth Conference invites

Posted Jun 25, 2018

[Anglican Communion News Service] Delegates at the third Global Anglican Future Conference, or GAFCON, which met in Jerusalem last week, endorsed a communiqué on their final day that called on the Archbishop of Canterbury not to invite to the Lambeth Conference in 2020 bishops from provinces that have endorsed “sexual practices which are in contradiction to the teaching of Scripture.”

The communiqué said that unless that happened, and unless bishops from independent breakaway churches that are not in the Anglican Communion – the Anglican Church of North America and the Anglican Church of Brazil – were invited too, it would “urge GAFCON members to decline the invitation to attend Lambeth 2020 and all other meetings of the Instruments of Communion.”

But ahead of the meeting, a significant number of primates associated with the GAFCON movement made clear their intention to attend.

Read the full article here.


Comments (22)

  1. Jerry Hannon says:

    When, if ever, will these Eye of the Needle vigilantes ever be told what they can do with their views. Perhaps our dynamic and loving Presiding Bishop can soothe their ruffled feathers, but I doubt that even Bishop Curry can change their pharisaical approach to life. In the meantime, what have they done in their own jurisdictions to modify the hateful and often destructive ways of their governments and general societies. Hypocrites!

    1. Dave Miller says:


      Where is the hate from Gafcon? Acts 2:38 sates we must repent, and when we study the full council of the scriptures it is clear that any sexual acts outside of a male/female marriage is sin. Romans 3:23 states the wages of sin is death, therefore this is a heaven or hell issue for Gafcon which means it is full of love wanting to see mankind redeemed by our savoir Jesus Christ.

  2. Donald R Caron says:

    The authority of scripture is a central issue of our day (see Jeff Sessions). People who are clinging to a literal (and not contextual) interpretation are fearful that the bottom is falling out of social order. The people of the Global South have not been exposed to modern methods of Biblical interpretation.

  3. Ken Alexander says:

    GAFCON has made a tactical decision to define themselves by what they’re against (same sex marriage mostly) rather than what they’re for (hard to tell what that is exactly). Groups do this when they’re worried about being cohesive and want to establish an identity (we’re the moral ones, unlike those others!). This often works in the short term but always ultimately fails.

    I have to believe that whatever most concerns the actual parishioners of African Anglican churches, it definitely it isn’t whatever “practices” might be going on in the bedrooms of American Episcopalians. They surely have more important worries their churches need to attend to.

  4. Matt Ouellette says:

    My prayers are with the LGBTQ+ individuals who live in the GAFCON provinces. They deserve better spiritual leadership.

  5. william dailey says:

    Well what do you know? The Church sent missionaries to Africa who endured privation and suffering while converting Africans to believe the Bible meant what it said. Now they’re being told it “ain’t so”. Poor devils don’t realize that the world has moved on. They should spend more time worrying about their own problems and leave the true Bible meanings to those more able to deal with the reality of today. Should they be required to abandon the fact that the Bible , as the missionaries taught them, does speak directly to marriage and accept that the LGBTQ+ church presence requires, according to some, a “tone of openess” entirely foreign to them? It appears that the convictions of all involved do indeed stand in the way of Church “inclusiveness”. It doesn’t appear to me that these positions are reconcilable. Maybe they shouldn’t be. Time will tell.

    1. Matt Ouellette says:

      No one is saying what the Bible says “ain’t so.” We are arguing that the Scriptures can be read in a way that affirms LGBTQ+ people and their relationships just like cisgender heterosexual people. Many scholars and theologians have done so. I pray that, for the sake of LGBTQ+ people in Africa, these interpretations can win out over the harmful interpretations that GAFCON continues to perpetuate.

    2. william dailey says:

      Is it wrong for anyone to posit that the “interpretations” you refer to have no more, and and perhaps even less, Biblical support than the ones that GAFCON believes? A yes or no answer makes the division irreconcilable it seems to me. Any solutions out there?

      1. Matt Ouellette says:

        In my opinion, it’s not much different than disagreements over the role of women in society and the church. You have more literalist readings which promote a patriarchal societal structure and deny women ordination, and you have more nuanced interpretations which acknowledge the patriarchal cultural norms present when the Scriptures were written are not inherent the gospel. While there is still disagreement over this issue, Anglicans have learned how to walk together despite our disagreements. I think we can figure out how to do the same with affirming interpretations as well.

      2. Steve Price says:

        The narrow tunnel vision approach of interpreting scripture is easily reduced to absurdity.Are we to believe that because the scriptures refer to Jesus riding a donkey and doesn’t mention him riding a camel that riding a donkey is the only acceptable way of travel and riding a camel is an abomination?

        1. william dailey says:

          Thanks for making my point!

          1. Steve Price says:

            Not sure which point you needed help making but I do have an answer to your question about a solution.Yes there is one.It’s a calendar and the passing of this generation.

  6. John Hobart says:

    I never thought we had a huge problem with racism in the Episcopal Church until someone directed my attention to our attitude towards GAFCON.

    1. Matt Ouellette says:

      It’s not racist to criticize the anti-LGBTQ+ positions of GAFCON.

    2. Jerry Hannon says:

      It’s also not racist to point out the beam in the eye of GAFCON when it comes to their failures to confront their own governments regarding hateful and abhorrent actions concerning minorities in their midst.

      1. John Hobart says:

        I remember reading something in the Bible about not being able to see the beam in our neighbors’ eyes because of the speck in our own.

        1. Jerry Hannon says:

          John, I believe you will find that you have it a bit backwards. Please see Matthew 7:5.

          1. John Hobart says:

            Jerry, I am well aware of what the verse actually says. I was pointing out your inappropriate use of a pericope that clearly warns us to look at our own faults rather than pointing out the faults of others. Sorry the sarcasm was lost on you.

          2. Jerry Hannon says:

            I was unaware that I have failed to criticize efforts to impression, if not worse, gay people in many of those African countries. Thanks for making me aware that I must have failed to do this.

          3. Jerry Hannon says:

            Imprison, not impression. The curse of autocorrect systems strikes again.

  7. Steve Price says:

    My biggest issue with some of the GafCon provinces is they are openly encouraging schisms within other provinces .I don’t see how they can be allowed to remain within The Anglican Communion to carry out their Trojan Horse strategy

    1. Jerry Hannon says:

      Yes, Steve, I had foolishly forgotten about that schismatic encouragement side of GAFCON. Their call to invite schismatic break-away groups like ACNA is a reminder of how little the Anglican Communion matters to that group.

Comments are closed.